Reflections, Observations, and Analyses Pertaining to the Canadian Political Scene

Wednesday, October 23, 2013

The Puffster's Senate Speech

As much as I detest Mike Duffy and everything he stands for, I have to confess that in listening to his Senate speech yesterday I was much-taken with both its content and delivery. Thundering at his erstwhile allies and colleagues, Duffy rebuked the motion of suspension pending against him and Senators Brazeau and Wallin. While undoubtedly heavily self-serving, Duffy portrayed a PMO and, by extension, a Prime Minister who abandoned him despite earlier reassurances that all was kosher with both his expenses and residency, all for the sake of political expedience.

During a meeting with Nigel Wright and Harper, the latter is alleged to have told Duffy:

"'It's not about what you did. It's about the perception of what you did that's been created in the media. The rules are inexplicable to our base' …, after which he was ordered to pay back the money.

Hardly a smoking gun, but the unfolding portrait is one that promises to further erode Harper's credibility on claims of knowing nothing about anything pertaining to Wright's arrangements to write the $90,000 cheque to Duffy. I am sure more will be revealed in the forthcoming weeks and months.

Will Duffy's words be enough to circumvent the suspension? Today may provide the answer.

10 comments:

It's not Nixon's eighteen minutes of missing tape, Lorne. But Duffy put Wright in the room -- a detail Harper forgot to mention. Most of all, the speech revealed how this prime minister and his office work. And it revealed that those emails -- which supposedly did not exist -- have all been carefully retained.

I hope and suspect that the formerly non-existent emails will be final proof of Harper having lied about his involvement in the whole affair, Owen. However, I do wonder under what forum they will be introduced. Duffy mentioned when all the principals are under oath, the entire truth will emerge. Is he anticipating a criminal trial? If the RCMP fails to bring charges, the documents, I fear, may remain hidden from public view.

Indeed, Rumley, this will be an acid test of how politicized the RCMP have become. While the subversion of justice might not cause Harper any sleepless nights, I expect and hope that it would outrage millions of Canadians.

Lorne, as I mentioned in a comment on Owen's blog, there's quite a bit we don't know yet, stuff that's in documents. Memos, e-mails, letters and more. All the stuff, post-Nigel, that someone in the PMO purged. Fortunately many of those documents survived. Wright handed over a binder of them to the RCMP. Duffy and his lawyer have their own collection.

I haven't read them but I spent close to an hour on the phone last night with someone who has. I'm told the documents shatter the myth that Stephen Harper knew nothing, that he wasn't in the loop and directing the Duffy-Wright business.

There is telephone evidence involving secondary players - conversations to which Duffy's wife and sister were on the line, listening in. There are also recordings.

This evidence suggests that Harper will do everything possible to prevent any prosecution of Duffy. Harper cannot afford to be questioned under oath. He cannot afford to allow Nigel Wright to be questioned under oath on his fatuous claim that Harper knew nothing. Wright will not allow himself to face a perjury conviction.

Watch for Paulson's RCMP to come out and say there's not enough evidence to obtain a conviction - leave the smear and bolt, taking Harper off the hook.

This is explosive information, Mound. Thanks for sharing it. I sincerely hope that the RCMP scenario you draw here does not come to pass, but given their record of politicization, the prospects of criminal charges being laid seem guarded at best.

I also heard yesterday (I believe it was Sen George Baker who suggested it) that if the Senate proceeds with suspension of the trio, all criminal investigation would stop, since the principle of double jeopardy would come into play. I'm not sure how much of a legal foundation there is for such an assertion, given that any Senate actions would only be quasi-judicial at best, from my perspective.

One thing that had intrigued me was why Nigel had created a paper trail for the 90K to Duffy. He could have used cash. After all, Nigel had worked for Mulroney and also had two law degrees. Thus Nigel was no dummy.

Based on what Duffy had said yesterday, one could surmise two reasons for the paper trail: (1) Duffy was being very uncooperative, thus there was a real danger that had it been given in cash, there was no mechanism for Nigel to get it back (either from Duffy or being refunded from the reported secret fund that he and Harper supposedly ran), and (2) the paper trail would deter Duffy from speaking up about the deal because Duffy would not want to volunteer that it was not his own money.

Well, now that Duffy had claimed yesterday that he was coerced into the deal for fear of losing his job, it does appear consistent with the report that it was not Duffy but another source that had leaked the news about Nigel's cheque.

I think this is too far gone for Duffy to be using this merely to stop criminal investigations. I do believe that at least part of what he had said yesterday was true: that he had known accepting the payment and keeping quiet was wrong in his heart. Perhaps Duffy may have some redeeming qualities or perhaps he just felt he owed Stephan Dion one.

An interesting analysis, Anon. While Duffy's speech doesn't redeem him (no mention, of course, about the $65K he directed for non-work to an old friend), it does raise enough questions to ensure that the entire issue will remain in the public arena for some time to come. I am sure Harper can't be happy about that. As for Stephan Dion, I suspect he has had several occasions thus far to savor the situation.